On 10/2/2012 5:48 PM, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
BGB writes:
On 10/2/2012 12:19 PM, Paul Homer wrote:
It always seems to be that each new generation of programmers goes
straight for the low-hanging fruit, ignoring that most of it has
already been solved many times over. Meanw
BGB writes:
> On 10/2/2012 12:19 PM, Paul Homer wrote:
>
> It always seems to be that each new generation of programmers goes
> straight for the low-hanging fruit, ignoring that most of it has
> already been solved many times over. Meanwhile the real problems
> remain. There has b
Reuben Thomas writes:
> On 2 October 2012 16:21, John Pratt wrote:
>> Basically, Alan Kay is too polite to say what
>> we all know to be the case, which is that things
>> are far inferior to where they could have been
>> if people had listened to what he was saying in the 1970's.
>
> He's also n
On 10/2/2012 12:19 PM, Paul Homer wrote:
It always seems to be that each new generation of programmers goes
straight for the low-hanging fruit, ignoring that most of it has
already been solved many times over. Meanwhile the real problems
remain. There has been progress, but over the couple of d
On 2 October 2012 16:21, John Pratt wrote:
> Basically, Alan Kay is too polite to say what
> we all know to be the case, which is that things
> are far inferior to where they could have been
> if people had listened to what he was saying in the 1970's.
He's also not very good at dissemination, or
It always seems to be that each new generation of programmers goes straight for
the low-hanging fruit, ignoring that most of it has already been solved many
times over. Meanwhile the real problems remain. There has been progress, but
over the couple of decades I've been working, I've always felt
Basically, Alan Kay is too polite to say what
we all know to be the case, which is that things
are far inferior to where they could have been
if people had listened to what he was saying in the 1970's.
Inefficient chip architectures, bloated frameworks,
and people don't know at all.
It needs a re
